In her senior year at West Point, Candace Fisher decided she wanted to join the Military Police since it would allow her the most options “to do the most soldier-like things,” Fisher recalled in an interview with CNN.

In 2006 and 2007, Fisher served at what would become Combat Outpost Keating, one of the most dangerous bases in Afghanistan. Fisher – who then went by her maiden name, Mathis – led a platoon of Military Police, supervising 36 troops, including six other women, attached to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 71st Cavalry.

“It’s a formalization of what we’ve been experimenting with the last ten to twelve years in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Fisher told CNN. “I think that those two conflicts have probably given the Army a pretty good idea of whether or not an actual policy change was warranted.”

Even though Fisher is Military Police and not Infantry or Cavalry, she says “given the nature of the fight over the last ten years or so, it’s made us all very dependent on each other as far as branches, interdependent as far as combined action and combined arms. So there has been a lot of bleed-over for missions regardless of what branch you are based on the conflict.”

During one mission in October 2006, Fisher and her MPs were teamed up with Able Troop’s 3rd platoon when they had to push through a complex ambush. The female MPs returned fire along with the male soldiers. Actually, one male soldier recalled, with their AT-4 grenade launchers, the MPs had stronger firepower than the scout platoon.

Fisher, 30, speculates that had the ban on women serving in combat missions happened before she chose the Military Police, “maybe the 22 year old gung-ho me would have” applied to serve in a combat unit. “But at this point I’m really happy with the choice I made. It’s great that those opportunities are going to be there for future women soldiers,” she said.

She takes criticisms of the policy change seriously. Of those who say women don’t have the upper body strength to serve in combat roles, Fisher said, “I think that's one of the reasons that Secretary Panetta is allowing the branches the time to do their analysis and give their feedback, because I'm sure that is a concern.” She personally doesn’t “have the upper body strength that a man does,” Fisher says, but “I do know some females out there who are exceptional athletes who can certainly hold their own with their male counterparts. So I think that whatever those branches decide needs to be their standard in order to facilitate their mission.”

Regardless of a soldier’s gender, what matters is that he or she can meet the standard, Fisher says.

Before Fisher and her MP platoon were deployed to what would become Combat Outpost Keating, one officer recalls, there was concern about sending female soldiers to the frontlines of the conflict. Fisher and her soldiers “were manning the same machine guns on patrols as our CAV scouts, which our senior leaders did not like,” the officer recalls. Then those concerns turned into ones about possible “General Order 1” violations – intimate relations between unmarried troops. There were myriad rumors of such prohibited contact.

In terms of fraternization, Fisher says, “people are always going to have those concerns, and whenever you get groups of people together, there's always either going to be that perception or there's going to be the few that do violate those types of policies… I don't think it's going to be enough to detract from the mission.”

soundoff(99 Responses)

Skorpio

Paying bounties to eliminate Islamic clerics is the most pragmatic and cheapest answer to stop global Islamic violence and terrorism. If those bounties are payable exclusively to Muslim women, they can have control and overpower the terrorists.

Hey MEN!
If the founding fathers were to come back and see this...They would tie us to a pole in the town square and horse whip us ALL!! for cowardice! Starting with the joint Chiefs – and working their way down.
Awesome, I not only live in a republic that condoned the killing of over 50 million unborn children, we now have our women fighting our wars for us/with us.
We are done, our society has reached the apex of infantilism, and immasculation worthy of being snuffed out by Islam!!
Great work Leon, Barry!

Jkc, fisher is a captain, not a Lt. Two bars connected is the O-3 rank in all branches. In the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps that rank is designated Captain. In the Navy it is Lieutenant. The picture is in fact incorrectly labeled, not that it pacts the article at all. Nowhere does it say she served in the navy.

January 27, 2013 at 2:18 am |

Retired Army 1SG

Did anyone read the article. She is now a CPT at Ft. Leonard Wood, obviously she was a LT when the pic during her deployment was taken.

January 27, 2013 at 9:52 am |

clot11

Incorrect. She is clearly a Captain in the picture. There is a 1LT in the picture but it is not Fisher.

January 27, 2013 at 10:36 am |

Perplexed

Here is the reality that this and other articles that are obviously favorable to women in combat leave out. It is customary during long marches for women to put their field gear on vehicles to have them transported and the men to be required to carry theirs. The guys see this and resent it. They know that the physical requirements are different because women can't cut it. Being an MP is NOT the same as an infantryman. Grunts go out in the bush for extended periods of time and engage in extended firefights that require much manuvering. MPs don't do that. Any guy that has been in combat for long periods of time knows that women will not be able to cut it. Not only will they die but guys who depend on them will also die. Sad commentary on us as a nation and civilization that common sense is abandoned.

Also you left out the problem that exists today of the high incidence of women getting pregnant and ot being able to deploy. Wait until the face combat in infantry units and watch the pregnancies increase.

No one is claiming MP is Infantry. Neither is better than the other as they are both unique and if working together bring some major awesomeness to the table. Females have been in the front lines throughout this whole war on terror in respect to combat arms/support. Medics and MP's in particular. And your claim on long ruck marches with females getting to frontload gear and males carrying their stuff around,that is absolute bollocks,and I've been in almost 10 years now.

I hate how everything is becoming so PC. The REAL issues are not women being able or not being able to handle physical and psychological standards. It's basic stuff like taking a dump right in plain site of men and being nude in front of men. That sort of deal. I can't imagine being at some OP with women doing the stuff infantrymen do out in the REAL mess. We aren't talking on the comfy FOBs where danger is not nearly as great and we have porta potties or more advanced toilet facilities, but out in the REAL danger where every day your life is a fight.

On all my deployments, I worked with female soldiers, Michael, It wasn't in a "comfy FOB" it was on cordon and search missions, route and area recon missions and dignitary protection missions. Your concerns are baseless. They handled their own, I would go to war with them in a heartbeat, they are better soldiers than the ones that complain and can't adapt to change in the combat environment. Did I want to see a female soldier wounded or killed? of course not, but I didn't want to see that occur to any of my soldiers male or female. Females have been carrying the fight to the ememy for years, if they can meet the standards then allow it. They are soldiers and are expected to fight like a soldier.

You are full of bull!!!! Unless Vietnam is so very different from combat in wars fought today there is no way that they can cut it. Either you have hidden agendas or you are just fantasizing!!!! You should be well aware of the obvious physical limitations of women as well as the very different phsycholical makeup.

January 25, 2013 at 10:45 am |

Keeks

Some females can give the most physically fit males a run for their money by surpassing even the highest of male standards. And psychologically,females generally tend to cope better than their male counterparts. I'm not being biased. It's just what I noticed during my deployment.

You could fit all those women (who would meet the PT standards) in a room the size of a pantry. This is pure pandering, devisive politics, and in NO Way improves the readinass of our armed forces. In fact the opposite is true.

January 25, 2013 at 4:41 pm |

Jon P.

One of the negative repercussions of this policy- is its adverse impact on the children of single mothers. I'm
thinking of the many orphans this may produce in this country.

By golly, we need them women in combat. Do you think our goyim boys are gonna want to ja.ck.it. off every night????

With all these women in combat, our goyim boys and hot to trot girls will get a little bit of sack time before those towel head fire 'em up with some lead in the pants. Heck, when their higher-up/E-5s tell our generation of new cattle soldiers to "hump that mountain on the double" there will be new meaning to the order and boy 'o boy . . .you can bet there will be lots of h.u.m.p.i.n.g.

Now, what red-blooded American boy and girl will not want to get to some h.u.m.p.i.n.g-time in green while a rag-tag bunch of towel heads are blowing them up?

Women in Combat Support and Combat Service Support units think they have been in "combat" by supporting counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Wait until the US faces an enemy with numerical superiority, technological parity, and the will to win. Google "Chosin Reservoir", "Kasserine Pass", or "Ong Thanh". Better yet, look up "Cherkassy Pocket" for the German experience on the Eastern Front. No air support, no reinforcements, no ammunition, no food, freezing temperatures, and a numerically superior enemy that wants to annihilate you. There were 30,000 German casualties during the 3 week battle. That's a far cry from driving around in an MRAP waiting to get hit by an IED or sniper fire, then saturating the ridgeline with 10,000 rounds of small arms and an A-10/Apache strike, after which you go back to the FOB for a hot shower/meal and watch a movie. Afghanistan is hardly a litmus test to say that women are ready for all combat arms positions.

We pushed across the border with females in Iraq for the invasion, no showers, no FOB and no movies. I had females at my outpost in Afghanistan, field shower, slit trench at first with a enemy that had religious idiology not political or racial superiority in mind. The battles of past were horrific, I give great respect to those that fought them, we cannot discount our current warriors who have fought battles and have been wounded and died in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are no less deserving of our respect for their will to fight in their battles of our modern era and we shouldnt downplay the fight they are in as less dangerous or less of a fight as in history. A bullet and a RPG are the same no matter what era you speak of, they kill the same.

1) AT4 is an Anti-Tank Rocket, not a grenade launcher. What they were probably referencing was the MK-19 Automatic Grenade Launcher. MP's and Infantry are the ones that primarily mount those weapons systems, and usually the Heavy Weapons Company/Platoon in the Infantry is the unit that has the most of these with the exception of the MPs.

2) The reason the MP's use a lot of these is they are primarily conducting mounted patrols, mounted escort, or a combination of mounted and dismount PSD mission, but not typically dismounted Patrols

3) Dismounted Patrols require a significantly different mindset and strength than do mounted patrols.

Not saying that women can't do it, but comparing MP mounted patrols and firefights to a lot of the Infantry dismounted patrols and firefights is a disservice and is misleading to the general public.

As an MP you cannot speak for the Infantry. Unless you have been there and done it don't try and pawn yourself off as a Grunt. You had a very different job than we had. During TET MPs in Saigon were called upon to engage in a lot of combat but limited to an urban area. They had a very hard time of it.

Parents of children and people who have served in Iraq war know the truth. Women have served at the front lines throughout the whole war. My daughter served as an MP in Najaf area in 2004-5 and was attached to !st Cav , Marines that were at the Cemetery, and other front line Units. She was a turret gunner on a Humvee and saw constant action even receiving a Commendation for Valor in the attack on Camp Gulf. But what eats at my craw is she wasn't allowed to wear her Spurs from the 1st Cav or the Wings she received from the Marines on her uniform even though she earned them because she wasn't suppose to be in a front line Unit which she was attached to. It is just a dirty little secret that Women have been there the whole war but not acknowledged for it because of bad press.

I think that some people don't understand the difference between 'combat' and an actual combat arms job in the army.

Great, you mounted up and manned a turret on a patrol, I respect that, I haven't done it.

However, that is a far cry from carrying a 70lb + kit 15 miles through the mountains (at the very lightest, many are 100-120lb or more) then engaging in a 30 hour firefight.

I don't mind females in combat. I DO mind the double standard that exists currently for physical fitness, and I certainly mind the whole "they just want to fight" mindset. There are many people who want to do it, but believe it or not many people are not cut out for certain jobs in the military, on top of that, many civilians aren't cut out for the military at all.

Amen! The day a woman can carry my 220lb body, in full kit, off a mountain top after being shot all to pieces is the day I'll support this. Until then, keep manning the deuce and stop the complaints.

January 24, 2013 at 11:04 pm |

Clot11

Spurs are reserved for individuals of the Cavalry or Armor MOS's or Infantry that were assigned to them, not attached. There are also Silver and Gold, one earned for a Deployment and one earned for the Spur Ride.

Not being able to wear the wings has nothing to do with her being a female or not supposed to be at the front. It more than likely has to do with uniform regulations with awards from other branches. Wings are universally worn, so gender and MOS don't really have any play in that situation.

I won't comment with my opinion on this, it won't change anything and doesn't matter, I'm sure others have the same opinion I do, but I just thought it was somewhat interesting that CNN has their little question for the poll asking "Should women be allowed in combat"...well...uh...they already are, this new thing is direct combat JOBS not whether or not they should be allowed in it. These days, there's not really a defined front-line, especially with combat support MOS's (jobs) also seeing combat. I think they should reword the question because some people might answer yes to "Should women be allowed in combat" but no to "Should women be allowed in direct combat jobs".

Just a thought, because there is a difference between the two, the majority of grunts have no issue with women serving in other jobs, most have an issue with them being in infantry.

I noticed it as well. They obviously meant MK-19, but somehow AT4 popped in there...either because someone is an idiot, or some other reason that I cannot think of.

However, yes, MPs typically have significantly more MK-19's than any other unit. The only exception might be a Heavy Weapons Platoon in the Infantry, but those Platoons are relatively small. MP's have so many heavy weapons because their missions are primarily mounted escort or PSD.

Don't forget route recon an surveillance, manuever and mobility support, Intelligence preperation of the battlefield, anti terrorism, tactical combat force (TCF) and passage-of-lines ops just to name a few. MP's are a force multiplier and are considered the "commanders force of choice" due to the economy of force organization of the MP unit.

January 25, 2013 at 7:51 am |

the middle man

Dinosaurs are a diverse group of animals of the clade Dinosauria. They first appeared during the Triassic period, approximately 230 million years ago, and were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for 135 million years, from the beginning of the Jurassic (about 200 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous (66 million years ago), when the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event led to the extinction of most dinosaur groups at the close of the Mesozoic Era. The fossil record indicates that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs during the Jurassic Period and, consequently, they are considered a subgroup of dinosaurs in most modern classification systems.[2][3] Some birds survived the extinction event that occurred 66 million years ago, and their descendants continue the dinosaur lineage to the present day.[4]

@ Big Guy with a Bazooka, For your information those women who are in the picture are in a "group" per say something you know nothing about apparently. You are the one who is pathetic considering you think that you have a big one :). I as a military wife love the fact that this ban has been lifted finally.

My daughter is a senior at West Point now, and decided to branch to MP's as well. She told me last night that is the reason she branched to MP's, to be the soldier that she trained 4 years to become.Not to show someone that she could be as good as a male, just to do the job she was trained to do.

Well don't hold it against his daughter, be a man and take it up with the drill sergeant, it is clearly bothering you.

January 24, 2013 at 8:41 pm |

justanopinion

Here's my question. Say the enemies somehow capture a squad of US soldiers made up of both men and women. Does anyone think that the misogynistic taliban will treat the female soldiers worse than the male soldiers? I don't know, I'm just asking.

What exactly is the point you're trying to make? That women need more "protecting" than men? Or is it that there's an assumption that some or all of the women in that unit would be somehow romantically "attached" to men in that unit, making ANY improper treatment of those women that much more trumatic....FOR THE MEN!

Your problem is that you're too used to the social "image" you have of women, which many of them subscribe to due to the lack of THESE very opportunities that would help shatter those stereotypes.

Take a hint...not all women will just scream and cower, then simply let themselves get gang raped, like they seem to ALWAYS do in the movies! Remember, for a long time in this country, women had NO legal leg to stand on in rape cases...to this day, MANY are still made to feel as if THEY brought it on themselves. Any woman adequately trained in lethal combat techniques, with no social stigma to burden her would make short work of MOST men who are trying to violate her.

As a Marine Infantryman I have no problem with women joining the combat arms as long as they meet the physical and mental requirements. One thing people have confused with our recent experience in Iraq and Afghanistan is that their is a big difference between being "in combat" and fighting. Anyone wearing a uniform can wake up and find themselves "in combat", going out and killing deliberately is a different ball game. Also we can't forget that what we've done in the past 12 years isn't neccessarily what our NEXT war will look like. War on the Korean peninsula will be far different (and far more difficult physically) than what we've been doing.

Yes, the females want equality but there is a double standard. If they would have to do the same numbers of push up like the guys and score the same without the double standard, guess what? they will cry and complain about discriminating against women.

I'm curious to know exactly what you are trying to state here. Are you assuming that soldiers in combat specialties get additional pay that non-combat and combat support soldiers don't? Or are you saying that female soldiers don't receive Combat Zone Tax Exclusion and Hostile Fire Pay, etc?

Either way, you are misinformed and have only succeeded in making yourself look ignorant. Soldiers deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan, regardless of gender, receive the same pay. There are instances where soldiers performing certain duties are given additional allowances i.e EOD techs, which is not an all-male MOS, being paid demo pay.

January 24, 2013 at 7:02 pm |

Clot11

The Combat Action Badge (Look it up) was designed specifically to give recognition to men and women who had been engaged by the enemy (IED's included) who are not of the Infantry MOS or Medical MOS. Infantry receives the Combat Infantry Badge (CIB) and Medics receive either the Combat Action Badge (CAB) or Combat Medic Badge (CMB).

My point is that recognition is given to Soldiers (In the army at least) who are engaged by or engage the enemy. Additionally, for enlisted Soldiers, these awards are accompanied by promotion points.

The same tired excuses have been used to keep women locked up at home, prevent them from ownership, getting a job, get higher education, vote, run for office, and everything else. Seriously, don't you feel even a little bit pathetic bringing them up again?

Hi, like i said show some love. i believe you an others are forgetting the prison are fill all over the united states. inlist those men an women to help with the proper training. an some thing to live for it's worth a big consideration do you think. some one please forward this to our congress/men&woman as soon as possible. show some love. p.s. they need to pay the people back for all we do.

Having spent 20 years in the military and serving with both men and women. i think women are just as capable as men- and as far as the pt test and strength goes..combat has changed...every heard of drones, fighter jets, missiles, intelligence, and other non hand to hand combat...we have evolved in how we fight....stop watching gladiator movies.

You're a real clown Nathan, and you have no respect for the fighting men and women who defend your freedoms!
War has changed and when women walk along side men on dismounted patrols in enemy territory, they ARE in
combat and have died doing this. Too bad you can't appreciate the sacrifices made by the brave, for the free!

I will add to what you said here. In today's world there are no front lines. If you are on a FOB or COP, you are still in a combat zone and can die just as quickly as anyone else. IDF doesn't discriminate.

If modern combat remained an arena of brute strength, then indeed, few female military members would be able to meet the standards for a successful combatant. Currently however, warfare is a combination of the strength needed to get your weapons (whatever type they may be, small arms, grenade launchers, rifles, tanks, air power....) into the combat area, the talent and training to hit your mark and the courage to make it so. In very few instances are combatants going hand-to-hand. Throughout my deployments, I have seen many casualties, most the result of mounted and un-mounted explosions. (MRAP and IED incidents). Very few of them were in a situation where gender would have changed the outcome. We are a nation and a military composed of diverse individuals with diverse strengths and talents. It is cutting off our nose to spite our face if we decide to ignore the talents and strengths of our people merely on the basis of gender. Set the standards and allow those that aspire to serve in that capacity to test against them. Make talent and ability to criteria, not anatomy.

@ Kashidog.... hey dog you have no idea what you’re talking about.... just because you went some FOB as a engineer or some other gay ass job took a few rockets doesn’t mean you been in combat POG. For all of you who thinks this is Iraq where you lazy fatty's drove everywhere let me tell you this we walk everywhere up and down mountains. I was 220 pounds and solid and know I am 175 and starving.... you think I got that from not using a lot of brute strength chump man you live in la la land and for all of you that spent time in Afghanistan on some huge fob as a supply clerk FYI you were never in Combat

Your kind of an idiot, but I agree I don't think females can do certain things. Maybe world class athletes, but most of the females I knew in the Army couldn't do ONE correct push up. Now if they can do it... ok more power to you. If not... this isn't a G.I. Jane Movie

January 24, 2013 at 8:14 pm |

Perplexed

Not all wars resemble Iraq and Afghanistan where IEDs are predominate. We had them but there was a lot of direct contact with the enemy where you had to engage and manuver. What if we get in a war where this is the case? War with China probably will be more conventional.

As a combat veteran myself, I'll say this. If they want to break down the barrier seperating men from women in the military, then they need to make the P.T. test scores EQUAL. Why is it that a woman has an extra 3-5 minutes on thier 1.5 or 3 mile run? How is it that they have to do FAR less push-ups, sit-ups or pull-ups than a man does? If they make the P.T. test scores equal and a woman can score the SAME P.T. score as a man then I agree, let 'em fight with us. If not, back to the rear with the gear for you.

As a current female military officer....I CONCUR with you....If I can't meet the standards for a job, be it strength, intellect or ability, I have no business being there. All we want is the same chance as you to try for the position. As for the PT, I would welcome a change to the PT scoring; why should I be tested at a different level?

What would happen is the will lower the standards because other females will complain about gender discrimination. What about Selective Service? Are females mandated like the guys to register? Mmmmm

January 24, 2013 at 6:30 pm |

sV1

Come on dude... ease off the ladies! If they want to run slower than their male qounterparts/team mates... be cut-off and left behind because of inferior training and abilities and die...who are we to demand equality?

Just kidding! It should not be an issue. All soldiers must be equal in all points when it comes to being prepared for entering combat scenarios.

When a male soldier weighs 140 lbs. and stands 5'5" tall, is he allowed to run slower, carry less equipment and/or be less of a participant within the team, squad, platoon...etc. when the rest of the team are 180 lbs. and 6'0" tall?

No...no...and NO! Male or female, you clime the same mountain, run the same course and score above the same minimum for men and women soldiers. Why would a woman soldier want to be considered as inferior to male soldiers by virtue of physical strength and abilities before they enter an assault team?

I was 5'9" and weighed 140 lbs but had to hump it the same as a guy 6'2" and 190 libs. They don't cut you any slack because the other guy depends on you. A male can do that. A female can't. When you go up against an agressive enemy in hand-to-hand combat estrogen won't help you any. He will beat you everytime.

Paul, while that's certainly true in most cases, i believe the article was saying that if she's competent enough to put a 9mm or a .223 right between your eyes at anywhere from 10 ft – 200 yds., who *cares* how fast she can run or if she can 'dance' with a guy?

I care ... cause as a 13B cannoner my primary weapon was a M777 lightweight howitzer ... that means whoever can't throw around 100lb rounds at a rate of 3-6 a min ends up becoming the PLs RTO or CMDRs driver! And why does everyone think that patrols are all vehicle mounted these days?! When we deployed in lieu of 11Bs we were going out on all day patrols for 10s of miles. Luckily the BTRY/CO that was at the COP before us fixed it pretty good ... we had working showers ... sort of.

January 24, 2013 at 6:27 pm |

ben

Boy Lou. You are everything that is wrong with America. Europeans are right, Americans are ignorant and arrogant.

January 24, 2013 at 6:38 pm |

Jeff

The Army cares how fast you can run... that's why we have a PT test.

January 24, 2013 at 8:12 pm |

Chris

The question is will this female soldier or Marine be able to shot straight after maneuvering for 10s of miles with a lot more gear than a MP ever has to carry? If you don't know anything about being a grunt wee do have different M.O.S.'s besides rifle men (0311 in the Marine Corps) which is seems like people don't realize because all everyone is talking about is how well these women shot the m-4 I was a 0341 Mortarmen in a Weapons Co. so we carrying the 81mm Mortar and I would love to see some of these ladies carry the 34lbs Mortar tube along with a full combat load and personal weapon up and down the mountains of Afghanistan and than still be combat effective when we reach the objective. I have no doubts that some women can handle the load but I just don't know that the risk is worth the reward as we have able body men to do these jobs and those men don't get pregnant which is one of my biggest concerns with this. Its not about a single mother dying and orphaning her child, its more about a fellow grunt getting pregnant before a deployment and being unable to join her fellow Marines or Soldiers in battle which will not only mess up moral but will also leave us short handed which puts the whole platoon at risk.

Post a comment

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Search Security Clearance

Share this blog

About this blog

CNN's Security Clearance examines national and global security, terrorism and intelligence, as well as the economic, military, political and diplomatic effects of it around the globe, with contributions from CNN's national security team in Washington and CNN journalists around the world.